Galatians 4:4

[David]

I have two questions about Galatians 4:4:

ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον

The verse has 4 aorist verbs. The first two are indicative the second two (γενόμενον is repeated) are participle. What is the significance of the change? Someone explained the participle as "was born/having been born in middle voice; whose subject is "The Son"; that is, it was Jesus who birthed Himself (grammatically speaking)." Is that correct?

While that sounds odd, it would explain why Paul chose to describe Jesus' being born of a woman using γινώσκω rather than γεννάω (4:23, 24, 29). If this is not so, what other reason would Paul have to describe Jesus being born of a woman using γινώσκω but Ishamel being born to Hagar using γεννάω?

[Philip Arend]

Learning the function of participles is one of the first helps to tearing down a Greek sentence. In general participles offer addition information about the events which the indicative verb(s) describe. You can find the range of meanings participles provide in first year Greek textbooks.

Also the middle verb conveys several kinds of action. Carl Conrad and Rachel Aubrey have free articles on the middle verb only a short search away. However, the meaning which you heard described is not correct at all. The better place to look for meaning is not in a grammatical form but in the surrounding sentences. The circumstances described by the two particles in verse 4 directly tie in to the two benefits described in verse 5.

Another trap to avoid when learning Greek is speculating about a meaning an author presumably had by NOT using a different word. (in your case γενναω) This kind of speculation does not tell us anything about what the author is saying.

To sum up, first try to follow the argument to find its meaning. Be extremely cautious about inferring additional meaning from the parts (grammar, vocabulary etc.) that combine to form the whole.

[Jonathan Robie]

ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον

The verse has 4 aorist verbs. The first two are indicative the second two (γενόμενον is repeated) are participle. What is the significance of the change?

In narrative prose, Aorists often describe a sequence of events, present and imperfective forms often "look around" at a particular stage. If you look at the preceding verse, it starts with imperfectives:

οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς, ὅτε ἦμεν νήπιοι, ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου ἤμεθα δεδουλωμένοι·

In this state, we were children, we were enslaved to the στοιχεῖα of this world. But then we see two Aorists that signal new events that changed this:

ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ

So far so good?

Someone explained the participle as "was born/having been born in middle voice; whose subject is "The Son"; that is, it was Jesus who birthed Himself (grammatically speaking)." Is that correct?

Um, no. This is incorrect. It's not a close call or the kind of thing experts are going to disagree on. I don't know who "Someone" is, but this is a misconception (pun intended) of the force of the middle.

First, in verbs related to birthing, the preposition ἐκ identifies the mother, we see that clearly in the phrase γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός.

Second, this verb often occurs in the middle, and it doesn't take the kind of meaning you are suggesting. For instance, in Mark 2:27 Jesus says this:

Τὸ σάββατον διὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐγένετο καὶ οὐχ ὁ ἄνθρωπος διὰ τὸ σάββατον

That does not even remotely imply that the Sabbath "made itself" or "birthed itself".

[David]

Thank you.

Is γενόμενον in 4:4 intentionally different from γεγέννηται in 4:23, γεννῶσα 4:24, and γεννηθεὶς 4:29 so 4:4 is meant to convey "made" (as Mark 2:27) or "coming" (as Exodus 18:8 LXX)? Then, "coming from a woman coming under the law" and purposely distinct from Ishmael who was born of the servant according to the flesh?

[Jonathan Robie]

Thank you.

Is γενόμενον in 4:4 intentionally different from γεγέννηται in 4:23, γεννῶσα 4:24, and γεννηθεὶς 4:29 so 4:4 is meant to convey "made" (as Mark 2:27) or "coming" (as Exodus 18:8 LXX)? Then, "coming from a woman coming under the law" and purposely distinct from Ishmael who was born of the servant according to the flesh?

In 4:23, 4:24, and 4:29, the word is γεννάω, "to give birth to a child". In verse 4:4, the word is γίνομαι, "to come into existence".

γεννάω is used in both of the following verses:

Matthew 1:16 Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός.
Gal 4:23 ἀλλ᾽ ὁ μὲν ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης κατὰ σάρκα γεγέννηται, ὁ δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας δι᾽ ἐπαγγελίας.

How much Greek do you know? What are you doing to learn Greek?

[David]

I am sorry if my question displays a high level of ignorance of Greek.

Where I struggle is understanding the theological consequences of choosing different words with a similar meaning (γινώσκω then γεννάω) to describe what some would say is a same event.

As you point out, Matthew uses one to describe Jesus and Paul uses the same to describe Ishmael and Isaac. But when describing Jesus' "birth," Paul forgoes Matthew's word. Instead, he chose a word Matthew never uses to mean "birth."

At a minimum I conclude Paul was aware of Matthew's vorlage to describe birth since he chose the same word for Ishmael and Isaac. But he did so only after choosing to describe the Son of God by 1) failing to use the same word and 2) by using a different word to describe the same event found in Matthew.

For these reasons, I conclude Paul used the Greek language to state a difference between the births of the Son of God, and that of Ishmael, and Isaac.

Obviously, one's doctrine may support understanding there is in fact a difference, regardless of Galatians 4:4. Perhaps it is Paul's way to make a simple distinction between the virgin birth from a normal birth. (Something Matthew clarifies in greater detail after giving Jesus' "birth" record.)

Unfortunately, there are some who deny Jesus' birth as anything other than a normal birth. Their doctrine is consistent with the English translation of Galatians 4...Jesus was born of a woman born under the law...but the son of the slave was born according to the flesh while the son of the free woman was born through promise. In my limited knowledge of Greek, this translation fails to accurately convey a difference which I believe is present in the original language.

I guess I am asking what the scholarly difference is between the language used to describe the Son of God coming into the world and the language used to describe Ishmael and Isaac's birth.

[Jonathan Robie]

I am sorry if my question displays a high level of ignorance of Greek.

This is a Greek forum, not a theological forum. It's fine to be a beginner, but this really is a forum for people who are at least working to learn Greek, reading texts in Greek. Here's our policy on that:

In the Beginner's Forum, we welcome beginners who do not yet have a working knowledge of Biblical Greek, and are actively working to learn the language. We want to help. Even basic questions about the meaning of the Greek text are welcome in the Beginner's Forum, and there's no shame in mistakes. Beginners will be gently pushed toward learning these structures over time, pointed to textbooks and other aids that will help them, and coached in how to see these structures in a text. Learning a language is all about learning the structure signals, so we will try to help you learn what these signals are and how to recognize them in a text.

Even in the Beginner's forum, general questions or opinions about doctrine or the meaning of the English text are not welcome. Sometimes we may encourage beginners to postpone questions that are over their head at their current level of understanding.

[Stephen Carlson]

(Focusing on the hermeneutical/exegesis aspect:)

In general, when people use different words to describe the same event, those different words provide a different perspective on the event. By different I mean not identical, many differences are in scope or focus rather than in extension or identity. As for the difference between γεννάω and γίνομαι (not γινώσκω, which means 'know'), the former is more specific than the latter, and the latter includes the former. Being born is just one way of coming to be. If Paul wanted to contradict that Jesus wasn't born, using a broader term like γίνομαι is a poor way to do that, since it still includes it. We can only assume that Paul's word choice was sufficient to convey the point he actually intended to make.

To say that "a word Matthew never uses to mean 'birth'" is to confuse author and text. The author of Matthew was a Greek speaker and the Gospel is but a tiny fraction of what he had ever said, so we have no way of knowing that the author never used γίνομαι in reference to a birth and, given that it can idiomatically refer to such in Greek, such a claim that he never did is a priori dubious. The text of Matthew is suitably limited but it was written after Paul and so its usage isn't relevant to interpreting Paul. Suggestions that Paul knew Matthew's Vorlage on the birth of Jesus are unevidenced, speculative, and not generally accepted among scholars.

[Jonathan Robie]

(Focusing on the hermeneutical/exegesis aspect:)

In general, when people use different words to describe the same event, those different words provide a different perspective on the event. By different I mean not identical, many differences are in scope or focus rather than in extension or identity. As for the difference between γεννάω and γίνομαι (not γινώσκω, which means 'know'), the former is more specific than the latter, and the latter includes the former. Being born is just one way of coming to be. If Paul wanted to contradict that Jesus wasn't born, using a broader term like γίνομαι is a poor way to do that, since it still includes it. We can only assume that Paul's word choice was sufficient to convey the point he actually intended to make.

I agree. And we see γίνομαι to refer to birth regularly in Greek, not just in the New Testament. It's one of the dictionary senses given in BDAG:

① to come into being through process of birth or natural production, be born, be produced (SIG 1168, 6; Epict. 2, 17, 8; Wsd 7:3; Sir 44:9; Just., A I, 13, 3; Tat. 26, 2) J 8:58; w. ἔκ τινος foll. (Diod S 3, 64, 1; Appian, Basil. 5 §1; Parthenius 1, 4; Athen. 13, 37 p. 576c ἐξ ἑταίρας; PPetr III, 2, 20; PFlor 382, 38 ὁ ἐξ ἐμοῦ γενόμενος υἱός; 1 Esdr 4:16; Tob 8:6; Jos., Ant. 2, 216) Ro 1:3; Gal 4:4 (cp. 1QS 11:21). Also of plants 1 Cor 15:37. Of fruits ἔκ τινος be produced by a tree Mt 21:19 (cp. X., Mem. 3, 6, 13 ὁ ἐκ τ. χώρας γιγνόμενος σῖτος). W. ἀπό τινος foll. Ox 1081 (SJCh), 11 γε̣[ινόμε]νον, 14 γέγ[ονος], 14f γε[ι]νομεν[ον], 19 γέγονος.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 197.

I think Abbott-Smith is good here, giving different senses it can take when used of people, things, and occurrences:

1. of persons, things, occurrences, to come into being, be born, arise, come on: Jo 1:15; 8:58, 1 Co 15:37; a first appearance in public, Mk 1:4, Jo 1:6, al.; seq. ἐκ (of birth), Ro 1:3, Ga 4:4; διά, Jo 1:3; βροντή, Jo 12:29; σεισμός, Re 6:12; γογγυσμός, Ac 6:1; χαρά, Ac 8:8, and many other similar exx.; ἡμέρα, Lk 22:66, al.; ὀψέ, Mk 11:19; πρωΐα, Mt 27:1; νύξ, Ac 27:27. 2. Of events, to come to pass, take place, happen: Mt 5:18, Mk 5:14, Lk 1:20; 2:15, Ac 4:21, 2 Ti 2:18, al.

G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1922), 92.

[David]

I understand this is a beginner's forum, and I certainly meet that criterion. However, I undertake the exercise to better grasp the meaning and in the case of Galatians (or any New Testament text), I think it is fair to say the nuances of composition should not (cannot?) be divorced from theology. Therefore, overlooking the compositional choices to arrive at an understanding which is devoid of theology, is either impossible or ignores the very reason the writer created the document.

Obviously, any text can be examined only from a literary perspective. Yet even in a purely literary environment, one considers the nuances a writer makes by the manner in which they composed the work. One could dismiss a choice to describe similar events using different moods, words, and such as simply a decision to avoid redundancy. However, failing to consider the text further because it can be understood from a literary or linguistic perspective is, in my opinion, a beginner's mistake. I think the beginner having arrived at a basic understanding of what was written would then be quired: "Beyond avoiding redundancy what purpose does the actual text serve?" Hence the BDAG which I own and consult, only reinforces the need to dig deeper. Why employ different words in a passage when the same one will suffice?